Talk:Chimel v. California

Untitled
This article needs a link and an infobox. It also needs to be expanded.

--Eastlaw 09:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Edited article for grammar and clear phrasing. Macwhiz (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that these edits were reverted with a relatively terse comment that they were inconsistent with the ruling. Rather than revert the full revision, including grammar, capitalization, and punctuation changes made to bring the article up to snuff with the Manual of Style, why not just change the portions of the text that are objectionable?  That would be in keeping with the WP:Revert only when necessary policy. If there are specific objections to my rephrasing, I'd be happy to work with anyone to ensure all the necessary nuances are captured.  Macwhiz (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason all the changes were taken back after reviewing both the case wording and the changes, a majority of changes that were made changed the wording of the court.  This takes away from the usefulness of wiki.   While copyedits are need in wiki, the danger of changing supreme court rulings it can change the meaning of the case.   It sounds bad, but a word change does effect how one case is held.   I do thank you for your work, and the work that has been done to clean wiki.  I would ask that before you copy edit Supreme Court Cases posted that you compare it with the court ruling. Jsgoodrich (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly, we wouldn't want to mislead a reader, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a law textbook or a court reporter. It's intended for use by the general public.  An entry about a notable court case should explain, in language that a layperson can understand, what the case is about and what it means in general terms.  No sane person would use Wikipedia as legal advice, so being clear and understandable is more important than expressing every precise nuance of the case.  For those who need precision, there's the link to the actual decision... and, of course, one should always consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.  Merely duplicating the text of a Supreme Court decision would be counter to Wikipedia's policies because it makes Wikipedia less useful.  Where the precise wording of the Court is critical, it should be included as a quotation with proper attribution.  (A copy editor does not edit direct quotes, except to correct transcription errors such as typos.)  So the question is:  Obviously you saw something about my changes that you believe changed the meaning of the decision.  Can you tell me more specifically what change you believe was incorrect, so that we can improve the page? Macwhiz (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Having conducted a thorough review of the case, and other cases surrounding it, I've committed a major edit to the page. In addition to the copy edits, it expands the article considerably.  I've added a direct quotation of the majority opinion where it speaks most directly to the issue at hand, to help alleviate any fears that the article is misquoting the Court.  I've added a number of references to other cases that were previously made only as "See Also" or scant references, summarizing how each of those cases relates to Chimel.  That includes cases not previously mentioned in the article that figured prominently in my research.  I've updated the case citations for proper formatting.  In general, I've brought the article into closer compliance with the WikiProject guidelines for Supreme Court cases. That includes using the recommended section headings. The text aims "to provide an overview to an international lay audience" and "is not a guide just for law students, but for all lay people" as stated in the Manual of Style (legal). Macwhiz (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)